Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

ELM327

Reminder: 67% YES.

This is the will of the people and it will happen.
Some 80 year old doctors or doctor unions posturing for other reasons involving state pay are not going to block this.

fxotoole

RobertKK wrote: »

It is very dogmatic to think an opt in system wouldn't work.

A list of doctors on the internet willing to carry out abortions makes sense. Simon would rather women go to their doctor and be charged €50+ for a consultation only to be told they will be referred to another doctor who will charge a consultation fee the first day and whatever the abortion procedure costs the next day.
Opt in would be cheaper for the woman.

Look Robert, the people have spoken. Abortion is now legal in Ireland. GPs need to fall in line and start providing services to patients regardless of their own personal beliefs.

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

Opt in would be cheaper for the woman.

And we all know how keen you are to see affordable abortion services for everyone.

RobertKK

fxotoole wrote: »

Look Robert, the people have spoken. Abortion is now legal in Ireland. GPs need to fall in line and start providing services to patients regardless of their own personal beliefs.

So it will be fine to have women charged for a consultation with a doctor simply to get a referral, when she could have that money in her pocket and know beforehand if the doctor she was attending provided the service?
It is like having an eye problem but not knowing you are attending a doctor who treats skin complaints, not eye complaints.

People are being dogmatic about referral by not seeing opt in would work fine, plus save money.

ohnonotgmail

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And we all know how keen you are to see affordable abortion services for everyone.

I think it is fair to say that this was their overriding concern throughout the entire referendum campaign.

RobertKK

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And we all know how keen you are to see affordable abortion services for everyone.

If I was a doctor I would not want to be part of a referral service. But you could be sure I would be taking my normal fee if I had to.
That said there is waiting times to see some GPs and I don't want my doctor's time wasted referring women when it can be totally unnecessary by using modern technology to get info.

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think it is fair to say that this was their overriding concern throughout the entire referendum campaign.

Why can people not be fair? I mean I have kept out of it and let you all bask in the glory of abortion being legal next January.
But it doesn't change the fact for doctors who want no part of this, which includes referral.

Cupcake_Crisis

RobertKK wrote: »

So it will be fine to have women charged for a consultation with a doctor simply to get a referral, when she could have that money in her pocket and know beforehand if the doctor she was attending provided the service?
It is like having an eye problem but not knowing you are attending a doctor who treats skin complaints, not eye complaints.

People are being dogmatic about referral by not seeing opt in would work fine, plus save money.

One would imagine that any GP who would turn a woman seeking abortion services away wouldn’t have the kahonas to charge her for the appointment.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

If I was a doctor I would not want to be part of a referral service. But you could be sure I would be taking my normal fee if I had to.
That said there is waiting times to see some GPs and I don't want my doctor's time wasted referring women when it can be totally unnecessary by using modern technology to get info.

To be honest Robert no one cares what you want.
The people have spoken and this will come in regardless.


A minor doctors union (not even the usual representative body) does not speak for the majority of doctors and obgyns, both of which were pro choice by some margin. From the top of my head, it was 18-0 with one abstention in the highest representative body of Obgyns.

Zubeneschamali

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

One would imagine that any GP who would turn a woman seeking abortion services away wouldn’t have the kahonas to charge her for the appointment.

I wish him luck getting his fee if he tries.

RobertKK

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

One would imagine that any GP who would turn a woman seeking abortion services away wouldn’t have the kahonas to charge her for the appointment.

Why not? They charge the same if you are there two minutes or 20 minutes or longer for a consultation, why do you think pregnant women who want an abortion will get special treatment?

Fighting Tao

RobertKK wrote: »

It is very dogmatic to think an opt in system wouldn't work.

A list of doctors on the internet willing to carry out abortions makes sense. Simon would rather women go to their doctor and be charged €50+ for a consultation only to be told they will be referred to another doctor who will charge a consultation fee the first day and whatever the abortion procedure costs the next day.
Opt in would be cheaper for the woman.

Yes let’s make a list of doctors for the nut cases to target!

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

Why not? They charge the same if you are there two minutes or 20 minutes or longer for a consultation, why do you think pregnant women who want an abortion will get special treatment?

Because the doctor has refused to carry out the requested service?
You get nothing for nothing in this world, and I'd never pay any GP who refused any medication or procedure request ..nor darken their door again

RobertKK

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Yes let’s make a list of doctors for the nut cases to target!

So are you saying it won't become known which doctors will and which doctors won't?
It is a small country and people will eventually know. Opt in and it just hastens people knowing, most people who are prolife will not want their doctor to be carrying out abortions, and pro-choice people might prefer a doctor who does.

Mr. CooL ICE

RobertKK wrote: »

Why not? They charge the same if you are there two minutes or 20 minutes or longer for a consultation, why do you think pregnant women who want an abortion will get special treatment?

Woman: "I want the thing"
Doctor: "I won't give you the thing"
Woman: "Ok, bye"
Doctor: "That'll be €55, please"
Woman: "G'way outta that"

Calina

I would prefer to identify doctors who would not deal with med abortions. If they are going to be conscientious objectors then I want to know before I am pregnant.

So RobertKK why arent they not looking to self publicise their conscientious objections?

Why is the default assumption that doctors won't provide so we have to identify the doctors who will?

At least if I know up front that a doctor is a conscientious objector to certain elements of care I can avoid them.

This is more efficient.

fxotoole

RobertKK wrote: »

So it will be fine to have women charged for a consultation with a doctor simply to get a referral, when she could have that money in her pocket and know beforehand if the doctor she was attending provided the service?
It is like having an eye problem but not knowing you are attending a doctor who treats skin complaints, not eye complaints.

People are being dogmatic about referral by not seeing opt in would work fine, plus save money.

What are on about?

There won't be any referrals because all GPs will be legally obliged to provide abortion services. I do hope GPs who refuse to carry them out on ethical grounds are reported to the HSE by patients and that the HSE come down hard on them.

Zubeneschamali

Calina wrote: »

Why is the default assumption that doctors won't provide so we have to identify the doctors who will?

I don't actually care if it is opt-in or opt-out. I think the reason Robert likes Opt-in is that he still hasn't got his head around the fact that there is a 2:1 majority in favour of abortion. He imagines opt-in will be a small list and hard to find one nearby and it will be a roadblock.

But I think doctors, highly educated and upper middle class, are more pro-choice than the average voter, and we'll see 3:1 or more offering services once payments are sorted out. Opt in or out will make little difference.

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Because the doctor has refused to carry out the requested service?
You get nothing for nothing in this world, and I'd never pay any GP who refused any medication or procedure request ..nor darken their door again

The doctor would be fine given there is not enough GPs in the country.
Lets say she has to pay the doctor nothing, unless she is able to walk to the doctor there is a cost involved, and there is the cost in time wasted for everyone involved which wouldn't happen with opt in.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

The doctor would be fine given there is not enough GPs in the country.
Lets say she has to pay the doctor nothing, unless she is able to walk to the doctor there is a cost involved, and there is the cost in time wasted for everyone involved which wouldn't happen with opt in.

Ah would ya ever go away with yerself.
It's done.
As dead as renua/ the dodo/ the telex machine


The people have voted, only 21% of the registered electorate were bothered enough to vote no.



Doctors are generally more educated than the populous at large, so therefore are more likely to be pro choice* . I don't see there being an issue with (m)any doctors objecting.


* If you take the Dublin area, in the constituencies with higher college graduates, the polls were and always have been more liberal on this issue. This includes but is not limited to DLR.

RobertKK

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't actually care if it is opt-in or opt-out. I think the reason Robert likes Opt-in is that he still hasn't got his head around the fact that there is a 2:1 majority in favour of abortion. He imagines opt-in will be a small list and hard to find one nearby and it will be a roadblock.

But I think doctors, highly educated and upper middle class, are more pro-choice than the average voter, and we'll see 3:1 or more offering services once payments are sorted out. Opt in or out will make little difference.

Does a 2 to 1 majority mean everyone has to think the same? In your head maybe it does.

I don't care how big or small the list of doctors is. I am for conscientious objectors to be fully excluded from the whole system, meaning no referral.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

Does a 2 to 1 majority mean everyone has to think the same? In your head maybe it does.

I don't care how big or small the list of doctors is. I am for conscientious objectors to be fully excluded from the whole system, meaning no referral.

No referral will hopefully be illegal.

PS: In referendum history, 2:1 is a very large margin, most referenda where there is any area of contention are much closer than that. If it was 51:49 like Divorce, there would be some argument for tapering it down a little. But with the overwhelming destruction of the No campaign by the 2:1 majority, it's full steam ahead. Abortion on demand mandatorily provided by all doctors.

Once that sets in we can move forward to 24 weeks.

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

Ah would ya ever go away with yerself.
It's done.
As dead as renua/ the dodo/ the telex machine


The people have voted, only 21% of the registered electorate were bothered enough to vote no.



Doctors are generally more educated than the populous at large, so therefore are more likely to be pro choice* . I don't see there being an issue with (m)any doctors objecting.


* If you take the Dublin area, in the constituencies with higher college graduates, the polls were and always have been more liberal on this issue. This includes but is not limited to DLR.

I am not fighting the referendum result, I believe in the concept of conscientious objection, which is a freedom that should be allowed.

SusieBlue

Sure wouldn't it be great if there were a list of doctors who opted in available online for all to see, then the pro-birthers would know exactly where to station their pickets in protest.
It would nearly be doing half the work for them. Telling them exactly where they can direct their moral outrage at.
At the expense of the women, doctors and other patients trying to avail of medical services, but who cares about them.
Voices need to be heard.

B0jangles

Word spreads very quickly - a doctor who refuses to provide either the service or even a referral will find themselves blacklisted by a lot of their potential patients.

If it was me, I'd be asking the receptionist what the doctor's stance is on such issues - that way there's no chance of being charged for a wasted appointment, but I understand that not everyone would feel comfortable discussing something like that with someone other than their own doctor.

(In my case it's a hypothetical; I checked and my own doctor signed up with Doctors for Choice )

RobertKK

ELM327 wrote: »

No referral will hopefully be illegal.

PS: In referendum history, 2:1 is a very large margin, most referenda where there is any area of contention are much closer than that. If it was 51:49 like Divorce, there would be some argument for tapering it down a little. But with the overwhelming destruction of the No campaign by the 2:1 majority, it's full steam ahead. Abortion on demand mandatorily provided by all doctors.

Once that sets in we can move forward to 24 weeks.

I am not even arguing about the abortions themselves.

The referendum result doesn't make conscientious objectors change their minds. There is no compassion from Simon Harris for conscientious objectors if he makes doctors who oppose abortion act against their will by having them a part of the abortion process via referral.
I do see it being a big issue which could easily be avoided.

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

Word spreads very quickly - a doctor who refuses to provide either the service or even a referral will find themselves blacklisted by a lot of their potential patients.

If it was me, I'd be asking the receptionist what the doctor's stance is on such issues - that way there's no chance of being charged for a wasted appointment, but I understand that not everyone would feel comfortable discussing something like that with someone other than their own doctor.

(In my case it's a hypothetical; I checked and my own doctor signed up with Doctors for Choice )

Yeah, doctors for choice had a list and how many of them are being hounded by 'nut cases' as another poster called them?
I don't think it would be a big issue, but Simon is looking to make it one.

Igotadose

RobertKK wrote: »

So it will be fine to have women charged for a consultation with a doctor simply to get a referral, when she could have that money in her pocket and know beforehand if the doctor she was attending provided the service?
It is like having an eye problem but not knowing you are attending a doctor who treats skin complaints, not eye complaints.

People are being dogmatic about referral by not seeing opt in would work fine, plus save money.

I can see lists of 'who will provide' being used by knuckledragging USA-backed No-bots to harrass doctors. They might find out by word of mouth, true, but much easier to have a list.
Instead, let's have a list of doctor's who WON'T perform abortions or WON'T provide referrals. You'd be screaming about their rights being abridged, yadda yadda. If a GP's going to conscientiously object, every woman should know who they are. Put their names out there. Heck, have them hang a sign on their door.

The abortion laws will soon be in place. Doctor's are controlled by the State. State should regulate that all women can visit the doctor of their choice for an abortion or at least a referral for one. The money savings thing is a canard - there's maybe a few thousand abortions to be performed in Ireland per year, assuming it's 5000, at 40/per visit, let's have the State pick it up - if a women goes to her GP for an abortion consultation (under aor12), it should be *free*.

Cupcake_Crisis

RobertKK wrote: »

Why not? They charge the same if you are there two minutes or 20 minutes or longer for a consultation, why do you think pregnant women who want an abortion will get special treatment?

Because they provided no help to a patient because of personal belief. If those GP’s are SO against abortion they shouldn’t be taking money from patients trying to get one. If you’re going to have these morals stand by them. They’d have to pry the money out of my cold, dead hands.

If you went to your doctor with ANY complaint and they told you that they were refusing to help you, then put their hand out for their 60 quid- what would you do?

antiskeptic

SusieBlue wrote: »

Telling them exactly where they can direct their moral outrage at. At the expense of the women, doctors and other patients trying to avail of medical services, but who cares about them.
Voices need to be heard.

Positively McCarthy-ite. A person is entitled to vote whichever way they want. That their vote doesn't win, doesn't mean their position is invalid. It's just not shared by others.

A doctor who figures he can't know what makes a human a human, and doesn't want to go in blind isn't expressing moral outrage. He's expressing agnosticism on the matter. His blood pressure could be quite normal.

If anyone sounds outraged, it's yourself.